linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: add support for using an alternate MAINTAINERS file

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:23:54 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] get_maintainer: add support for using an alternate
 MAINTAINERS file

On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 12:14 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2015, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 11:36 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> There are large and/or complex subsystems/drivers that have domain
> >> experts that should review patches in their domain. One such example is
> >> drm/i915. We'd like to be able to document this in a way that can be
> >> automatically queried for each patch, so people know who to ping for
> >> reviews. This is what get_maintainer.pl already solves.
> >> 
> >> However, documenting all of this in the main kernel MAINTAINERS file is
> >> just too much noise, and potentially confusing for community
> >> contributors. Add support for specifying and using an alternate
> >> MAINTAINERS file with --maintainers option.
> >
> > Is this really useful for the community at large?
> 
> Probably not.
> 
> > This seems like something that might be useful for an
> > organization but not others.
> 
> It may be useful for several organizations contributing to the kernel.
> 
> > Why is specifying whatever is necessary in the existing
> > MAINTAINERS file noisy or confusing?
> 
> IIUC you can't specify file patterns for specific reviewers within one
> entry. I think we'd have to split up the driver entry to several, mostly
> duplicated and possibly overlapping entries, with their own designated
> reviewers and file patterns. I think that would be noisy and confusing.

I find the concept of adding separate MAINTAINERS files odd
and at best and not good for the community.

Internal to an organization, if this is for subject matter
expert reviewers, perhaps it'd be better to add an optional
"REVIEWERS" file (or maybe multiple REVIEWER.* files) with
simpler patterns.

Using just R: F: X: N: K: would probably work.

This wouldn't have to be section ordered like MAINTAINERS,
but could also be ordered by reviewer skills.

For example:

$ cat REVIEWERS
BIGCO PHYS
M:	Joe Schmo <joe.schmo@...co.com>
F:	drivers/net/ethernet/bigco/*/*phy*



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/